On one hand, I do feel bad to have to write critically of an obviously inspired young person, it's great to see such enthusiasm. On the other hand, I'm very encouraged to see that the denial movement is so excited over their latest member - it shows just how desperate they are becoming for new sources of global warming denialism.

Previous Comments

Skepticism 101 alert!!!
“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”
At this point, I have seen no independent, objective evidence that:
- Kristen Byrnes even exists.
- that she attends Portland High School.
- that she created this website as a class project.
- that she did it herself.
- that she wrote the polemics on the blog herself.
- that the posts under Kirsten-B in www.physicsblogs.com are her.
[certain comments seem rather unlikely].
- that the one picture of her in newsbusters.org is her.
All of this may be true, but it may not be either. I’ve looked pretty hard, but 15-year-olds don’t necessarily have a lot of net-visible tracks, even with White Pages and Intelius.
Do you have any such independent evidence?

So now it’s come to this, has it? How very proud you must be of yourself.

However, as you always exclusively use the ad hominem attack to minimalize your ideological enemies (including now even 15-year old girls), the one thing you omit, as always, is a rational counter-argument.

Even the worst hypothetical environmental apocolypse – floods, droughts, hurricanes, mass starvation, or whatever else you cook up – pales in comparison to your one man crap-storm of ham-fisted character assasination.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.